I hope we won't ever see another DO lens or Canon cameras with pellicle mirror or any other optical dead end.

Thanks, but no thanks. 70-300DO ... one of the most grossly overpriced and underperforming Canon lenses ever.

Quote

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens circular aperture makes out of focus points of light very round for a 6-blade aperture, but I don't care for the way the DO makes points of light into rifle target-like bokeh. Here is an example ...

Quote

The bullseyes do not show up often in real use, but a DO-caused bright, blurry halo shows itself more frequently. It shows up in out of focus areas - especially when the 70-300 DO's aperture is opened up. Some like it and call it dreamy - I personally don't like it. Here is an example ...

Contrast is the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens' optical shortcoming - which also hurts the apparent sharpness performance. I found that most of my shots needed a healthy contrast boost in post-processing (or a positive in-camera contrast setting). I could easily tell which image was taken with the 400 DO when looking at comparative shots on a monitor. ... Even the Canon 100-400mm L has better contrast when the vignetting in the full frame corners at 400mm does not get in the way.

1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.

Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.

Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

The TSE 17 f/4L lens is rather recent, isn't it? I consider the 200-400 f/4 lens with in-built 1.4x TC and 24-70 f/4L HIS macro lenses to be pretty interesting too. If Canon releases a 16-50 f/4L IS lens with sharp corners, I'll be impressed.

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

While I agree with most of your sentiments, but many of those "golden years" lenses has some serious issues. The 50mm f1.0 L is horrendously soft wide open, The 200mm f1.8 was closer to f2 in reality...and was heavily front heavy...it easily nose dived on a pod becuase the tripod ring was put in completely the wrong place. The 400 DO is widely regarded as softer than the 400mm f2.8 or 400mm f5.6..or even a 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 TC (which really questions the need for that particuar lens).

While Sigma have a fine 35mm f1.4, my Canon 35mm f1.4 has performed faultlessly over the last 6 years...I have the Canon version and the Sigma version wasn't available and it produces fantasticly sellable pictures. To me, a lens is a lot more than chart results and sharp corners.

A new 100-400 L would be a game changer. The mkI version is one of the most versatile long lenses available and it's very old and certainly needs a re-work. An IS system which didn't come of the ark (it was one of the very first IS systems ever put into a lens)...an AF system which faster than pedestrian....and a sharpness to equal or better the 400mm f5.6 would be very nice. I'd buy one in an instant....I could lose several lenses in my bag to combine into this one lens.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

The TSE 17 f/4L lens is rather recent, isn't it? I consider the 200-400 f/4 lens with in-built 1.4x TC and 24-70 f/4L HIS macro lenses to be pretty interesting too. If Canon releases a 16-50 f/4L IS lens with sharp corners, I'll be impressed.

But I agree Canon needs to keep up their innovative work on lenses.

Photography is not something that was invented yesterday, so some good thinking has gone into what the producers offer today. I believe what we normally discuss in this forum can be split in two. The bodies, where the technology development still have a very steep curve, can be described as evolving, whereas the the lens market is a rather mature one.

In my view Canon is struggling a bit on the body side, but not on lenses. Yes, there are a few we would like to see upgraded or developed, but in general they have pushed the performance on lots of key focal lengths, both primes and zooms. Hereunder the 17 and 24 TS-E, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 300/400/500/600 big whites etc. etc. They have also delivered a few additions we have not seen before. the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x being one and the 8-15 f4L fisheye zoom being another. I believe it is quite clear that Canon provides the widest range of quality glass in the business.

Looking at my collection of Canon lenses, I can shoot any object from 8-1200mm, in most lighting situations, at any arena and in any climate condition. And my own lack of capabilities set aside, the quality provided by the Canon glass has improved a lot over the last 10 years. I believe that is called pushing the envelope

Will Canon really produce a 135L IS ? It would be larger than the current one and undoubtably much more expensive, putting it in more conflict with the 70-200 2.8 II. Add 1.8 and both the fore mentioned problems grow. The current lens is the 'holy Grail' of L lenses because it is affordable to many. Put it out of reach and the only thing that will happen is the second hand value of the current one will go up !

It's also relevant that the likes of Sigma haven't (yet) produced a stabilised 135.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies.

1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.

Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.

Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

Mikael, are you again? Do not give ideas to greedy executives Canon, they already have many. Let's contemplate what interests us, not what we hate.

I threw out my guesses a while earlier, but if Canon were to build lenses specifically for me....

14-24 f/2.8 LA new 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS L with the latest/greatest IS and an improved optical formula.

I'm really not hurting in the middle range, and their long lenses are already awesome. A little too expensive though, which is why I have the previous versions of two of them (but hey, a strong used market frees up cash for people to buy in the new market so there).

I'd love to have the 200-400 f/4 +1.4X but that's just out of my price range for now. Ditto on the 500/4 IS II, which is considerably lighter than my 400/2.8 IS. Either would be great for birding without the burden.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

I think the new 200-400 w/ built in extender is, in your words, a "novel" lens that "pushes the envelope ".

I'm just about to make the jump to full frame to the 6D from my T4i for a trip this Christmas and am going to drop some serious coin. (Christmas lights, fireworks, low-light videos... I need a 6D, Santa! Really! ) I'm looking to get the FF equivalents to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses...

To save money I'm going body only and plan on getting the 16-35 f2.8 II to start which will handle my shooting needs short term.

Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)

On the plus side I was looking at the 24-70 f2.8 to replace my 17-55 sometime next year so there might be a better lens for that... But if I knew there was a 10-22 f2.8 with IS coming I might hold off...)